Thursday, July 15, 2010

[alt: The exact cause of the phenomenon is unknown, but it's thought to be linked to atmospheric refraction and you getting a really cool car.]

Let's start with the obvious. This xkcd doesn't quite look like most others. Can you figure out how? Here, I'll give you another comic to compare it to:

Yes, definitely something odd going on here.

Now, I've read the comments about this comic on my previous thread, and there's been a huge debate over whether this comic constitutes good art or not. And I think people on both sides of the argument have made it clear that they will kill me if I do not agree with their side. So, knowing that by wading into this debate, I open myself up to certain death, I have to say that I do like it.

It's not a timeless classic, of course, and some people who seem more knowledgeable about computer art than I say it isn't even that difficult. No matter. I still like it, and not just because it's better by far than the usual standard. It may not be realistic to have the ocean be totally dark right next to the sun, but whatever. When I ask for better art in xkcd I don't mean photorealistic art, I just mean art that helps the comedy, which this does (to an extent). Here, look at the big version.

Leaving the quality of joke aside for now, the point is that one character is trying to use the sunset to distract another. If we just had a crappy black ink on white page version of this comic - which I would sketch out if I had more time but I am sure you can imagine it in your mind - it wouldn't be as effective. Seeing some that much more closely approximates a real sunset makes your mind start to think about times that you have looked at sunsets, it makes it easier to imagine a person staring at this while a man in a hat steals his car. In other words, (and i haven't expected to say this before) the art does help support the story of the comic.

Of course, the story is lame. The story is "look at the sun while I steal your car," with a car that happens to be popular to nerds these days thrown in. That's it! It makes for quite the contrast with the art, though not in a nice way. Besides, Mr. Hat is supposed to be diabolical, not so stupid that he tells the dude exactly what he is scheming. Look at it! He's actually saying "stare at the sun for a while as I drive away in your car." Come on! I'd be happier with the no dialog version, as linked to above. Maybe some weapon clearly visible in Mr. Hat's hand, or something.

In the end, it's a rare step towards art and words that compliment each other in xkcd. I'd be setting myself up for disappointment if I expect more of this, but at least he isn't denigrating an entire field of study or showing people carefully plotting pregnancies.

----DAYS TILL THE OVERCOMPENSATING BOOK COMES OUT: 4DAYS SINCE THE LAST XKCD BLOG UPDATE: 61 (two full months!)DAYS THE XKCD "ANTHROPOLOGIZE" MESSAGE LASTED ON XKCD: 2 (it's not even up on the original comic anymore! sucks to be an anthro major who reads the comic later!)

Posted by
Carl

74 comments:

This is one instance where he should have ripped off Men In Hats - break up the single image into multiple panels, each a different instance of dialogue between the characters. He could have actually set up a joke then.

ves: AGREED. this story line started with the right level of creepy/funny balance, in the first 2 or 3 installments, and then just quickly went crazy. I don't want to read a comic where well established, respectable characters get raped in the back of vans.

Am I missing something or was today's comic just incredibly pathetic? Is there something other than the fact that Mr. Rogers doesn't really get angry? And if that's all there is, then why did he have to repeat the joke and then explain it in the alt text?

Also he put off drawing anything and just tossed up a [no video], that's real classy.

I didn't make the connection at first but I think today's comic is trying to reference the Mel Gibson fighting with his wife that has been in the news lately. It makes more sense than random reference to Mr. Rodgers, and it also explains the [No Video]. Doesn't make it better, but at least I see what he was trying to do.

To be fair, it's quite a bit funnier if you assume that that's a beer bottle (maybe even a green one) in Mr Hat's hand and that the second thing Mr Hat says is under his breath.

Also, there's more contrast here than you give credit for: the first comment Mr Hat makes is the kind of thing someone (a nerd) might say at sunset to impress a date whereas the second comment is a strange and unnecessary explanation for the upcoming events of the robbery (and if it's under his breath is a smart-ass way of messing with the other guy before he robs him).

But yeah, the Tesla thing is lame nerd-pandering and, for me, nearly ruins a rather solid xkcd.

Better Hatman line (I think): "Isn't it beautiful to just stare at? By the way, you still have your car keys on you, right?" (This is said while carrying a large weapon and after the line about the green flare.)

@Ves and CarlI agree about Achewood. Maybe it's just that we have to wait a week for each comic to move the plot forward in *tiny* incremental steps. And maybe I'd be more forgiving if the previous arc hadn't been disastrously bad.I'm missing Beef, Ray, and the rest of the gang. Here's hoping Achewood gets back in stride.

I'm just so relieved by the latest strip defusing one of the imminent threats that (at least until the next one goes up) I can temporarily relax and forget about the horrors of the giant creepy cat cock.

Re: xkcd

Carl made a good point about this art actually being functional and helpful to the strip for once, and I'm inclined to agree. I'm just annoyed at the "OMG the colors TAKE ON A LIGHT OF THEIR OWN, hoist me up on the cherry picker SO I CAN WATCH THIS GLORIOUS SUNSET AGAIN" crap. Have you Philistines never gone to a museum and seen some actual art ever in your lives?! Or hell, if you don't want to leave the basement, just look up a site with some pretty desktop landscapes or something, Jesus.

@Dan:I think the implication is that the audio has been transfered to a video saying [no video] for broadcast purposes, which makes some nonzero amount of sense. I mean, if it had just been black or white everyone would have been asking why everyone was invisible or why Randall did a pitch black scene, so at least this established what's up with that. And while it's possible Randy just chose this idea so he could avoid spending five minutes to draw a couple stick figures, the joke here wouldn't even make any sense if we could see the scene.

(For the clueless: the intended joke is that you're reading kind words that you then find out to be, contrary to expectations, somebody in a fight. But who would ever say such things in a fight? Only Mr. Rogers. I think there's a clever idea in there, but the execution only managed to leave me confused for a minute or two.)

I'm obviously missing some sort of subtlety in Carl's humor-laced posting, but I'm pretty sure he's not just saying "Stare at the sun for a while" but "Stare at the sun while I knock you out with this blackjack", which is clearly visible in his hand.

Better vesion of 766: Same art. Same first line ("do you know...green flash"). Completely remove the second line. Have Mr. Hat pulling back his arm to hit the unnamed character in the back of the head.

It takes out the part where Mr. Hat becomes a Bond villain and reveals his plot before it finishes along with the pointless nerd-car reference. It lets the reader figure out the joke on their own a lot more. It shows, and doesn't tell. Perhaps most importantly, it leaves a lot more to the imagination, which is always a good thing, but is especially good in this case: it allows us to imagine that Mr. Hat is planning something devious.

This is so much better than the joke being LOLZ IMA STEEL TEH CAR. Can someone more tech/art savvy than myself make this happen? Shouldn't take too long I imagine, though I wouldn't really know.

That doesn't really work with the stick figures, ya know. If Randall had done that, we'd all be here trying to figure out what the fuck was wrong with Hat's arm and where the joke was. Personally, I think this really needed to be a two-panel. Panel one, exactly the same, same first line, remove the STEEL TEH CAR. Panel two: show part of the sunset, Hat driving away, other person crumpled by the ocean. Sadly, a little more difficult for someone to create than your version, but worlds better.

Tesla Roadster... Alternative fuel breakthrough that is not as astonishing as the Honda FCX Clarity (ask Jay Leno), Would prefer a car nerd/lover shout out, Alfa Romeo, or a best car (engineering wise) in the world shout out, Bugatti Veyron. I guess it doesn't really matter since it won't make the comic any better.

When Fred Rodgers gets in a fight with his wife, he's still such a gentleman and is always comforting.

So to deconstruct it, it's basically a Chuck Norris joke but focused around being kind and sensitive instead of being violent and manly. Which would be fine, except:1: Read my summary of the joke again. Notice how generally flimsy and unfunny it is. If it was a Chuck Norris joke, it would be something like "Even when Chuck Norris isn't allowed to use his hands, he still wins in a fight".2: The fact that I don't even have to explain what a Chuck Norris joke is means that this kind of thing (X person is so Y he does Z while Y) has been done oh-so-very-many times.

Additionally:-alt-text is just plain sucking up-the art is RIDICULOUS (seriously Randal? You're too flipping lazy to draw an audio player of some sort? Like, not even a radio or something?)-that dialog isn't even remotely human. Throwing in something about sand would still work better than that!

Achewood has been fine if you subscribe to the fanflow. There have been some great Ray pieces over the last month that make up for the tone of the strips. On the other hand, xkcd is barely worth discussing anymore because it clearly will never be a good strip again. An editor might have helped him at one point, but his ideas are rarely amusing anymore. The new one is just "Mr. Rogers was much nicer than Mel Gibson." The execution was fine, but the "joke" is terrible. On the bright side for Randall, I think QC has recently surged past xkcd in terms of unreadability.

I don't have a huge problem with the idea of the new xkcd. What if Mr. Rogers had a tape released just like Mel Gibson's? The answer is, he would be polite and not have a violent outburst!

The problem I do have, which will probably be the subject of Carl's post on the strip, is why would that be worth releasing to the public? Also, what is Randall trying to say? That Mr. Rogers is a nice guy? What a joke!

767:Once again randy's total lack of professionalism does him in. I have no issue with the joke in this comic (even if I personally don't find it funny), but the construction... oh god. randy, a webcomic has to contain both art and text. If it has no art, or if the art is doing absolutely nothing (like in 767), it's not a fucking comic. I understand this joke works best as an audio recording (because really, what would a picture show?), but you must have art for it to actually count as a comic. And if you find that you can't make the joke without sacrificing either the art or the text, then you should take that as a hint that you should change the fucking joke.

Carl you should tag 767 with "blag", because this isn't even picto-blag territory.

767 is okay, not super, but okay. Humor works on the contradiction of expectation; the moment when your brain becomes confused before understanding dawns.

Reading the dialogue first, you sort of don't get a sense of what the conversation is about. Then the label at the bottom describes it in a way that you won't have taken it for at all. Your brain becomes confused at the contradiction before it bridges the connection between Mr. Rogers and the ubiquitous politeness and even temper he displayed on his famous show.

There is a joke, and it's an okay one. That's miles and miles and miles better than any other comic he's made in years.

CURSE YOU CARL for I now look at that PBF and I think "well does it really need to be three panels? i mean panel two and panel three are both conveying the same idea: that he is strapping dynamite to the pig. except panel two isn't as clear as panel three. this would be better if we cut panel two and had the bubble being what he is thinking in panel three."

@ann the difference here is that you could potentially justify the need for both panels since without the second we would not know how the pig came to be rigged with dynamite and without the third we wouldn't be sure exactly what the fellow was doing in the secondwhen xkcd makes a mistake like this it is usually indicative of a much more fundamental problem with the comedy

There is no fucking way you got "Oh, it's Mr. Rogers." from "Sometimes, when we disagree I feel frustrated." and you know it. Well, unless it was a catchphrase of his or something, I never really watched his show.

It's flimsy and stupid and is only noteworthy in that it isn't terrible, but this attitude that every single comic must be worse than the last just undercuts the purpose of pointing out when he produces real eye sandpaper.

Absolutely. Well-said. Comics are a visual medium, and if an artist (or "artist") is going to text-wall his audience to death, then he has failed by the standards of his medium, regardless of how funny his joke is. (In the case of 767, he has failed to write a good joke, too, but that's somewhat beside the point.)

I believe Yahtzee (among many others, but Yathzee's critique was especially spot-on) has criticized Tim Buckley for the very same infraction.

@Sven: You may very well be right. I wouldn't know, because I have better things to do with my time than read/watch about Mel Gibson throwing a hissy fit. This isn't meant to be a shot at you, it's pretty easy to have this sort of thing shoved in your face, but why would Randall think that it was a good idea to make a comic based on this? Does he really think his target audience is terribly interested in that kind of thing? Is he really so low on ideas that he needs to pick up a copy of the National Enquirer to get some material? No longer do you have to understand Math, or even basic Language. No, now you just have to be in touch with Popular Culture to get into his jokes!

Is it just me, or is he trying to broaden his audience by catering to the absolute lowest common denominator?

I only found out about the Mel Gibson stuff this morning purely by accident. :)

I'm not sure if this comic is supposed to be a reference to them, but it seems the most logical explanation. An audio recording of a celebrity arguing with a significant other? It's a pretty big coincidence if it's not deliberate.

On an unrelated note, if I were writing XKCD, all the 7x7 comics would've been about airplanes.

I went looking for a photograph of a beach that is fairly close to the scene Randall drew. This is the best one I could find (in five minutes, because I'm lazy and impatient).

Randall's drawing isn't bad, per se, but it misses a few key points. The ocean is darker than the surrounding sand, for instance, whereas in the photograph the sand is much darker, while the ocean is quite well-lit. The color of the sky is also odd--there can be a wide variety of pinks, purples, blues, and whatnot in the sky during a sunset, but having the entire sky be a rather uniform shade of red is mildly disturbing. (A previous commenter with more artistic acumen than I noted that it looks more like an atomic explosion than a sunset.)

I suppose I'm nitpicking for two reasons. One--it took me one very half-assed Google image search to find that picture. Randall could easily improve his art if he simply tried, and he doesn't, which is frustrating. It's not an "artistic style" if the artist is painting things that can be seen in the world around us and ignoring observable evidence, such as how light, color, and texture are present in said observable world. Two--people are making a huge deal about this comic, when really, all Randall did was use color. The context is distracting people from the fact that his art has not gotten better, it has simply become wrong in different ways.

As for 767, I confess that my mind didn't go to the immediate pop culture reference; I thought it was a throwback to the old "that'll take care of the little SOBs" urban legend, which meant Randall was stealing material from the Simpsons again. Maybe it was unintentional, though. And maybe I'll buy a unicorn.

On the contrary, the art doesn't need to directly relate to the punchline to add or subtract from the joke. If the art is based on something real--a tree, a mountain, a sunset--and that thing is drawn badly, it detracts from the joke. Similarly, if it is drawn well, and evokes the thought, "Wow, that really does look like [whatever it's supposed to be]," it adds that much more pleasure to reading a well-crafted joke.

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.